aorlov added a comment. In D92024#2431452 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92024#2431452>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> The subject line says "access checking on specializations and > instantiations," but I don't see any tests for explicit instantiations here — > just specializations. In particular, I'm very interested to know if P0692 is > intended to have any effect on the legality of https://godbolt.org/z/fqfo8q Thank you for your important suggestion! I'll add test cases for //explicit instantiations//. > It would also be good to document which of the two proposed wordings from > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0692r1.html is > actually being adopted in this patch. AFAIK there are four options in the paper. This patch covers option *A*. I'll mention this in the summary. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92024/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92024 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
